Last year we submitted a planning application for a new build dwelling on a private estate in Claygate whose roads and verges of the estate are owned by the Ruxley Heights Residents’ Association (Surrey) Limited. All residents are members of the RHRA and there is an elected board of directors.
The RHRA impose a levy on property developers comprising; (a) a one-off fee of £28k to grant a licence to form a new cross-over point if a new entrance is created., plus (b) £10 per square metre of the gross external area of the property. This has no immediate relevance ~ I intend to fight this aspect in the future.
The RHRA always oppose applications ~ last year the chairman of the RHRA submitted a lengthy document raising many objections, some based in fact but mostly scare-mongering. There was also an organised campaign where information packs were given out to residents spelling out how to object and what they should say.
Last year the chairman refused to meet to discuss their objections.
Our application was refused on three grounds ~ all other RHRA objections (30+) were refuted or ignored in the planning officer’s report. We embarked upon another pre-application process with Elmbridge Borough Council and found a mutually acceptable solution to all three concerns and were encouraged to submit another application.
The Chairman of the RHRA has just emailed all the residents as follows:
Email from Chairman of the Ruxley Heights Residents’ Association
From: david albert <XXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX> Date: 5 April 2014 14:45 Subject: RHRA - Planning Application relating to Ruxley Mount, Mountview Road
Dear Fellow Resident,
Following a refusal of Planning Application No. 2013/2794 by Elmbridge B.C. a new Application has been submitted under reference 2014/0973.
This new application appears very similar to last year's application, but of particular concern is the fact that the proposed siting of the new house is even closer to Mountview Road than in the earlier application.
On the current Site and Location Plan the 30 feet line from the site boundary (which is where we contend the building line runs from) is no longer shown - the only 30 feet line shown is that from the edge of the carriageway, and even this is infringed to a greater degree than previously.
RHRA will therefore be objecting to this application in a similar manner to their earlier objection.
We have previously notified the developer that RHRA will not permit the new cross-overs proposed even if planning permission is obtained unless the 30 feet building line, calculated from the site boundary, is respected.
NOTE; The covenants signed upon the purchase of the house refer to the 30 feet as being measured from the road, NOT the boundary to the property so this is another lie
Representations must be lodged with Elmbridge Planning Department no later than 25th April.
Hope this helps
Why has the original expert opted out?
Have you read all the details?
Historically, the Chairman has always opposed every planning application on behalf of the RHRA so it seems he has the authority to do so.
My point is that he is an influential "voice" in the community and there is much evidence to suggest that other residents have submitted objections in the past based solely upon what he has told them.
Hope that makes sense?
I have no problem with anyone objecting, including the RHRA. Obviously I would prefer no objections but I accept everyone has the right to object.
I want a court injunction to; (a) forbid the chairman of the RHRA using false information to incite the residents to write to the local council, and/or (b) to instruct the chairman to issue a statement retracting his email.
You could say that the planning officer would ignore inaccurate objections. However, the law states that if more than 10 objections are received the planning application has to go to committee and that becomes a lottery and adds further delay.
Hope that helps.
I have original and revised architect's plans that prove my point.
PLEASE SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW IN UPPER CASE WITHIN
THE BODY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
THE PLANS SHOW THE HOUSE TO BE FURTHER AWAY.
THE PLANS SHOW THIS 30 FEET LINE IS NOT INFRINGED TO A GREATER DEGREE
THE COVENANTS OF THE HOUSE STATE;
"NO BUILDING OR ERECTIONEXCEPT BOUNDARY FENCES OR WALLS SHALL AT ANY TIME BE ERECTED ON THE LAND HEREBY CONVEYED WITHIN 30 FEET (EXCLUSIVE OF BAY WINDOWS) FROM ANY EXISTING OR FUTURE ROADS THAT MAY BE ON RUXLEY LODGE ESTATE."
Incidentally, I've received an email from RHRA chairman this morning refusing to send our a retraction statement.
I'm sorry, Alex, but you seem to have missed my point completely. I've already recognised anyone's right to object (including the chairman on behalf of the RHRA).
My point is completely different. The chairman is FACTUALLY INCORRECT in what he states as proven by the plans submitted.
THEREFORE HIS ACTION IS MALICIOUS AND POTENTIALLY VERY HARMING TO MY BUSINESS. AS CHAIRMAN OF THE RHRA HE HAS WRITTEN TO 102+ HOUSES ON THE ESTATE INCITING THEM TO OBJECT ON THE BASIS OF FALSE INFORMATION.
I WANT AN INJUCTION THAT AT LEAST FORCES HIM TO MAKE A RETRACTION.
ARE YOU SAYING THE LAW DOES NOT HAVE A WAY OF DEALING WITH THIS?
OK ~ thanks ~ I think we're getting there. Please advise what are the steps needed to seek an injunction in the High Court against the RHRA? Would it be for slander or libel?